Thursday, June 12, 2008

The Science Of Not Having Your Own Ideas

If you are not creative, it doesn't mean you can't create. The way to do it is to take things that were once popular and update them by adding whatever new technical gadgets people use, add Rock 'N' Roll or Rap, add any kind of passing trend to it and not only get the concept wrong but get the trends themselves wrong and piss everyone off equally.

It seems to me it would cost a lot less and be a lot safer just to hire actual creative people who make entertaining characters naturally, rather than taking old characters and undoing what made them popular in the first place.

Here's an article to show you how executives think. It also shows that anyone on earth can be an executive....except someone with talent and ideas.

Warner Brothers hopes to “reinvigorate and reimagine” Bugs Bunny and Scooby-Doo through a new virtual world on the Internet, Strawberry Shortcake, part of a line of scented dolls, now prefers fresh fruit to gumdrops, appears to wear just a dab of lipstick (but no rouge), and spends her time chatting on a cellphone instead of brushing her calico cat, Custard.

This is double irony. Strawberry Shortcake-a cartoon based on a line of greeting cards; something that never had any integrity to begin with is now being watered down even further.

But it's so much easier to just reuse old characters. That way you don't have to come up with a decent story. The drones will simply flock to see these "new" characters based off the success of their predecessors. Oh yeah, and lets not forget, "children" are better off if they are feed the filtered version of content under the guise of political correctness. You know, because only kids watch cartoons...

"Warner Brothers struggled to make the Looney Tunes characters relevant to modern children, and introduced futuristic-looking “descendants” of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and others in a television series in 2005. But many parents hated the “Loonatics,” which had mohawks and menacing eyes."

Hmm, menacing eyes and mohawks? Maybe they hated them because the show was a piece of shit!

“It’s a terrible world, and modern parents are trying to cocoon their kids as much as possible,” said Alfred R. Kahn, chairman of 4Kids Entertainment, which also manages franchises like Pokémon and the Cabbage Patch Kids. “What better way to protect them than wrapping them in nostalgic brands?”

Yes keep kids bored and ignorant until they go off to college. Alfred R. Kahn is a monster.

How else will our worthless inner city gang bangin' youth be able to relate to him?

Mickey needs to "put a cap" in donalds ass and dream of becoming a famous rapper to "be keepin' it real"

How about queer mickey,they can sell shirts with him and goofy exhanging vows.Chip and Dale always did seem a little to "happy"...and what about their obsession with having nuts in their cheeks?maybe Iger will "out" them.

We just keep lowering the bar!

I personally was never much on Disney anyway,but at least they once projected a wholesome image and made family movies with traditional values.

Now they are nothing but brazen money chasing whores.

mention Disney to todays generation and they conjure up images of Britney Spears,and hanna montana.Apparently Disney thinks its great to encourage 13 year olds to aspire to be "rock stars" and future Paris Hiltons.

I am now OFFICIALLY never having kids. Not because I hate kids, but because this is so depressing, I actually want to commit suicide.

Wait, no. I should just kill executives.

Bill Hicks was right. "Kill yourselves ( marketers ). There's no rationality for what you do, you are lowering the standards of this planet, you are fucked and you are fucking us, it's the only rational thing to do: kill yourself".

Not only does it shame the past of the WB, but it's simply horrible marketing.

if you're going to try and "Cash in" on a popular franchise, you should at least try to imitate what was popular about it.

At least Tiny Toons tried to target Looney Tunes fans by imitating what most people like about them (the comedy, the Irreverence), but why would anyone who likes Looney Tunes give a shit about an Anime Action-Packed 'Drama' like "Loonatics"??

For the most part I agree with your assessment - why fix it if it ain't broke BUT let's not forget the characters that were changed and by doing so made better...THE SIMPSONS, even MICKEY and THE HULK, oh wait -- not that one.

“It’s a terrible world, and modern parents are trying to cocoon their kids as much as possible,” said Alfred R. Kahn, chairman of 4Kids Entertainment, which also manages franchises like Pokémon and the Cabbage Patch Kids. “What better way to protect them than wrapping them in nostalgic brands?”

Yes, even though this Kahn guy is the chairman of the anime crapshoot known as 4Kids, he's got a point. If politically correct soccer moms didn't try keeping kids away from real life and try to "soften it up" with the crappiest cartoons and Disney sequels imaginable, maybe we wouldn't have idiot spinoffs, horrible cartoons, and sludge-spewingly horrible Disney sequels.

And yet, something tells me that within a few years...it's going to get worse. Much, much worse. And that's just looking at this in a positive perspective.

I read this article yesterday and was sickened by the lack of imagination of these executives. They have run out of talented, creative people to steal from and just decided to ruin the property they still own before they bankrupt their companies.

Hey, cartoon execs, if you want to appeal to the kids of today, get some plastic surgery and a lobotomy, hell it couldn't hurt your work any. You want to make good cartoons that people will like and will make some money, let creative people create and get out of their way!

Some of you guys are missing something. Most of these shows run for a season or two, and then they scrap them. That's because NOBODY likes these shows. It's video game style marketing.

Make something cheap and easy in a short period of time, allow what creativity you can without taking foreseeable risks, hype it up, sell it, repeat. They don't want to entertain. Entertainment is the furthest thing from their minds. They aren't making art, they're making a product.

They allow creativity, in the hopes of some how striking a chord with someone, and starting yet another phenomenon. But outside their main productions, they just make little things to stay afloat.

It's pure marketing, and everyone can see it. You guys are talking about the absolute bottom of the barrel garbage cartoons. EVERYONE hates them, except for three or four kids with very primitive tastes.

Now that I'm back, that's no Looney Tunes or Strawberry Shortcake!Cellphone really? Aarrgghhh! *%#@$#!!!Ok, I'll grant that she is a decent looking character and if I can't do any better then I shouldn't bag.But it looks nothing like the original (tasteful. I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that new Strawberrie's shortcake!). They could atleast change the name of that "Strawberry Shitcake" and put her in with one of those fairy cartoons that's on the tv now.

It is very very VERY depressing!

Is there a petition or a blog we can sign to put an end to this murder?

If the executives are scared to take risks and they feel more comfortable rehashing and mining the old shows that were great, then how did the old great shows get made in the first place? At least one dude had to know what was up to allow them to be made. Tv is dead anyways since the internet, but just curious anyways...

WHAT THE HELL? GOTH TWEETY, does that chick even have kids, if she does either she doesnt pay attention to them, or they are little burocrats, but really what this article made me is laugh and get pissed at once.

Well, we did see those images of Mickey like an UPA character, so I guess all periods have their trends.

Anyway this kind of thing normally applies to merchandising and maybe one tv series that is soon cancelled before they come back to the usual design. When WB did Space Jam and LT: Back In Action they used the traditional designs, sort of. The day they do a Loonatic feature for cinemas then I will be more worried.

I'm not totally against reusing old cartoons, but man, why can't they show some respect? I'd totally be in favor of the realization of a decent LT feature, for example. Is it so difficult to let some freedom for some talented people who actually cares about these characters? We wouldn't get Clampett quality, that's for sure, but maybe the characters could finally have a good homage in a feature film. But that's impossible, executives would turn everything into crap.

Also, this commentary is totally spot-on: "Something else I don't get is why Today's kids have have to "Relate" to Cartoon characters in order to like them. Kids in the 40s loved Looney Tunes, and they didn't go around doing wild takes and dropping Anvils on each other."

Very true. I was born in 1980 and I enjoyed Looney Tunes and Mickey Mouse and nothing looked especially old-fashioned about them. And even if something looks old-fashioned,should kids be afraid of it? Should they be exposed only to the most modern trends?

The older the cartoon the edgier it seems to me and the more "true" modern it is. Political Correctness and "hip" trends are so dull and lame, they are not even modern or they are only modern during a couple of days.

I hate today's shitty corporate reimaginings. I think that remakes should be made, but not like this. The characters shouldn't be updated to modern tastes. They should stay exactly the same. The only difference should be that instead of using telegrams, Bugs Bunny uses a cell phone. Small changes such as technology. Not personality and complete look!

Warner Bros. should have retired the Looney Tunes after Mel Blanc died. If that had happened, we would not have been tormented by Space Jam, Back In Action, the Duck Dodgers TV series and the Loonatics TV series.

Meanwhile, The Iron Giant and Cats Don't Dance are largely unknown to all but the Cartoon Cognoscenti. Retards.

Besides, Disney revived Goofy the right way in "How To Hook Up Your Home Theatre System." At least Goofy had personality that they stayed true to...Mickey has always been a non-entity. At least Jimmy The Idiot Boy has some character outside of being your signature character, John. You can't say that about Mickey. Even in his heyday Mickey was a goody two-shoes non-entity. Bleah.

Mickey is a brand logo, not a character, and the kids of today know it. Dressing him up in saggin' jeans showing his boxers and draping tons of gold chains around his neck isn't going to change the fact that HE HAS NO PERSONALITY OF HIS OWN.

At least the classic Looney Tunes were personality-plus. That's one of the many, many reasons why the classic shorts are still fresh and new 60-70 years out.

I do seem to remember having a pretty keen sense of what was a *counterfeit* version of my beloved cartoon characters, even at an early age. I certainly could differentiate between the *real* Popeye, and the King features stuff, the lame Tom & Jerry vs. the good Tom & Jerry. Shemp versus Curley is one thing, but did anyone actually like Curley Joe? I'm not sure marketing should be completely reviled: Considering your audience, and the *context* in which your creativity is perceived has been a legitimate concern for artists since forever.

The nerve...Yeah, it's kind of scary how it works. "Well, I can't see Character a_1 appealing to people, possibly because when I became executive I had no other plans but to become powerful. So, take a_1 and change it to b_1. It has the same principles because we say so."

That article made me want to puke; it disgusts me that these bastards are making so much money off these great characters (looney tunes I mean) and now have the nerve to screw with the characters themselves, that the great artists of the Golden Years created.

Shame, shame, shame. I see the same sort of crap happening over here in Oz.

Patents didn't like "Menacing eyes and mohawks?" Wasn't that the reason kids loved Mr. T in the 80's?

I remember back in the early and mid 90's when the WB store was infesting malls, and kids in my high school were all wearing "Tuded" Taz and Bugs shirs... the ones where they were dressed in Kris Cross backward pants crap that was going on then. That was bad. Distasteful. Stupid.

Lunatics, on the other hand, was obviously the product of a mind affected by several generations of inbreeding.

Some things can be updated with out a problem...usually movies: John Carpenter's "The Thing", David Cronenberg's "The Fly"... even "Battlestar Galactica" had a fantastic update. Those were old idea that were given a boost by some very creative people.

So you'd think yo could do it easily with cartoons. John did pretty well with Mighty mouse, Yogi Bear, and the Jetsons (shame those last 2 didn't go on to start new series).

Trouble is, with cartoons, the "new" ideas aren't coming from good creative types who want to entertain.. they're coming from the marketing department.

I think marketers more often than not underestimate and misrepresent what kids want. Kids didn't ask for a Tudified futuristic version of Bugs. Hell, a 9 year old kid actually started a webpage to stop WB from releasing Lunatics called "Save our Looney Tunes".

Trouble is.. as long as execs who don't understand creative-types are in charge of the money, we're gonna have to deal with this "re imagining" problem over and over again.

I thought Kingdom Hearts was a fun idea though: take a Final Fantasy game and throw Disney characters into it. It wasn't like any of the Disney characters in that game were re-invented. But I totally agree that classics like Donald and Goofy have way more depth and personality than any Anime-type Final Fantasy character ever will.

It's interesting choosing both the kingdom hearts and loonatics images.

Kingdomhearts did a great job(I've only played the first one) of really bringing out the core of what was good about the characters and the stories. Design wise Nomura did his thing. I dont mind his work to be honest. I cant say I like it on established disney characters but I've read enough comic books to get used to the different artists take on things.

Loonatics on the other hand, well I just watched a few bits and pieces on youtube and yeah...wtf. It's as painful as the new transformers animated. SO godawfully crap!

Oh I just saw those "The Bad Catholic girl Models" They were drawn amazingly!! What are these from?

OK, having read the article only once and not really wanting to read it again, here were my main screaming logic problems with those executives: Firstly, the article admits that their focus group approved projects and funky brand re-energizations fail half the time anyway, for reasons they don't understand. At all. They have no understanding of anything. So what would be the harm in actually allowing someone somewhere in the process to actually be creative? Would it really make the odds of success any worse, even from a cynical no-integrity perspective?

And that business about 'wrapping them up in familiar brands' that's just wrong on so many levels. Firstly he's trying to make something completely amoral (milking tired shite) sound a bit moral (helping parents to 'protect' their children from the world's nastiness). Secondly that idea in itself is playing to a bad instinct in parents who were young in the 80s, to feed the child something familiar because 'familiar' is always safe and always conveys excellent values. By the 80s, hadn't this process of soulless sunglasses-adding watery 'tudenizing already started anyway? So we're now getting a 'more relevant' worse drawn worse designed more ill-conceived version of that? What are we trying to be relevant to?

'Cool' is such a false value. The concept was probably only culturally applicable for a short period in the late 50s or something. Aside from the fact that these people elevating cool are possibly the worst positioned people to identify what might actually be cool. And do kids really care about making things be gothic and have piercings anyway? Do they really think that might be the magic jackpot answer?

Eehh... These executives are everywhere it seems.. I'm really curious as to where exactly this whole recreation process began and why. And OH DEAR what's this about a gothic tweety? -Time to reconsider a brain implant!

These executives are great. Their quotes make them sound like parodies of themselves. I do love the double irony of framing the story around Strawberry Shortcake. There's nothing good about her so there's nothing to ruin in the first place. I say give her a makeover every 10 years. Maybe you can kill her off and then retell her origin story like a comic book character. There's nowhere to go but up!

I think these are brilliant ideas and I commend all the dedicated and brilliant people who took the time and energy to contribute to such a worthwhile creative endeavor.Three cheers for them I say:HUZZAH!HUZZAH!!HUZZAH!!!

"Mickey has always been a non-entity. At least Jimmy The Idiot Boy has some character outside of being your signature character, John. You can't say that about Mickey. Even in his heyday Mickey was a goody two-shoes non-entity. Bleah. Mickey is a brand logo, not a character, and the kids of today know it. Dressing him up in saggin' jeans showing his boxers and draping tons of gold chains around his neck isn't going to change the fact that HE HAS NO PERSONALITY OF HIS OWN."

I can't agree with it entirely. When Mickey originated, he was like many other characters, with faults. He tried to kiss Minnie, by force, when she didn't want to -- he threw a bird out a window that was annoying him. When it was decided that he would become the face of the company, he became Mr. Goody Goody. I remember reading that Walt would actually be a little jealous of Mickey's fame, as Mickey's name was even put on top of the Snow White Poster!

Mickey Mouse hasn't behaved like a real cartoon character since he stopped playing the teats on that musical sow in 1928. That gag was one of Walt's. Walt always had his finger on something, and once in a while the magic showed up on the screen. Walt's name for a silent screen romantic star in one of his old Kansas City pictures was "Rudolf Vaselino." Walt had a grip on base comedy at some molecular level, though he was arguably not as obsessed with bowel movements per se as Friz.

The harder they try to be cool the less they are. By the time they recognize the "cool, hip, groovy, radical, extreme" new trend or fad it's usually too late to ride it. So "Beating-a-dead-horse" passes for creativity and lazy slackers are Americas heroes. Yuck! Right back to the bottom end of the creativity cycle.

The cartoon world looked similar to this when John made "Ren & Stimpy" (execs without a clue in charge) and is the reason it was such a huge hit when it came out, because we were aching for it. I can feel the thirst for John's cartoons building. Hell, I'm parched. It's only a matter of time until one of those bones heads decides to give John another try, hell they have tried everything that doesnt work, they are bound to do something right by accident eventually.

man oh man...nothing in the animation world ever pissed me off more than that loonatics show...such sacrilege...personally i think the looney toons characters need to be left alone...everytime they try to bring them back in live action movies, or crap like loonatics..it just kills the legacy of those classic looney tunes....honest to god...why not just keep the classic ones in syndication for new generations of kids to discover...i cringe at the idea that some kids first exposure to bugs bunny would be him as an "futuristic action hero"...in fact..ill cringe right now...*cringe*

trevour, I think you're confused. The later Final Fantasy games emphasize their plot. Although the series is still going because of marketing, the crews are left to do what they do best. That's why those games keep selling. That's why those games are still good.

The characters are far more developed in the form of a plot, over time. It's dramatic fantasy fiction. Just because it isn't funny doesn't make it "bad". There's a lot of different types of entertainment. I, for one, enjoy a good tragedy story.

The way cartoon characters and more serious characters are developed is different, though. Cartoon characters tend to be expressed entirely in the moment, through their actions, their expressions, the way they move, the way they look, etc. Dramatic characters are developed through their words, their actions over time, their interactions with other characters, the way their emotions are brought out.

Kingdom Hearts was a stupid fucking game, and I hated it. It was easy, it was boring, the characters were NOT developed properly, the main characters had nothing to do with FF or Disney, and the cartoony stuff always looked out of place in the FF environments. (Or vice versa) The whole game seemed thematically out of balance. I did not enjoy it.

That game only has the fandom it does, because of childish fangirls/boys who have a tendency to "fall in love" with a character like Sora or Riku. They're drawn in by the sheer fact that it's anime, and they're obsessed with the cliche garbage produced by/for american broadcast. (I call it americanime) They have no taste. They just want something brightly colored, emo, cliche and spiky-haired. And most anime fans, who seek out the really old stuff by the "masters", hate these fans. They just like it, because it's the stylish thing for american nerds to like.

That's what the anime guys are trying to do, to try and revive their industry. They're feeding off a trend, to try and make enough money to pay for what made their art god. But the problem isn't the money! Technically, the entire anime side of things has ALWAYS been in trouble! They're too busy trying to build a trend that will pay them, to realize that they've done animations at 15 fps (And lower in some scenes) and still done amazingly well!

Johnnyplank i agree with you. Many rabid fans being too obsessed with this characters because it's the Anime! They should make the difference between a real good Anime (60's to 80's) and the bastardised ones (90's-2000's). I notice in today's Animes it's always the same story with same cliches. They tried harder to be the more approach from the real world but they lose any integrity at the end. It's purely a piece of CRAP!

I remember giving a chance to Loonatics in his premiere but now i feel to disgusting this show even after his cancellation. I always dreamed to see action packaged Looney Tunes characters but now i'm disappointed because i learn why this characters are created. They supposed to be funny with slapstick moments and not a Anime garbage shit.

I hope only they don't updated Tintin, Haddock or Lucky Luke to emo or rappers. Eerrrk!

John. I know how you only like the art in cartoons, but I saw an episode of The Simpsons that completely mocks the idea of "coolness" and "trends" in cartoons. It's called The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show. I'd like you to watch that episode and use some of it's points to describe the issue of cartoon characters being modern, old ones or new ones.

P.S: I just saw the new modernization of Alvin and The Chipmunks that was made as a movie. IT'S HORRIBLE! IT WAS HORRRRRRRRRRIIIIIBBBLLLEEE!

I thought nothing could ever be worse than working on WB's "Loonatics". I cried like a pussy every day. Then, later on, I worked on Scooby/Shaggy "Get A Clue" and a little part of my soul shriveled and died. I thought to myself that nothing could ever be worse than this. Since I was wrong before, somebody PLEASE put a bullet in my brain so that I don't end up working on Low Fat Strawberry Flavored Snack Food Bitch.

The worst aspect of this executive-run animation business is the not the lack of creativity by the higher ups (though it's the root of most ills). Instead it's the plummeting financial returns that result from audience dissatisfaction and the corresponding decline in pay for the animation artist in general. It's hardly worth being creative even if you're given a chance.

Jay, we do spread the word of what's good... Or, at least, I do, in person. And John seems to be doing the same through his blog entries on how to do cartoons right.

The problem is that these (as John calls them) executives try to re-imagine the entire character. In essence, they take the name of a character people love, and put it on one who only vaguely resembles it's source. With each re-imagination, they're jumping series after series over the shark. And they've made a few do it several times. I like to think that Loonaticks somehow did a back flip over the shark. It allows me to derive some sort of pleasure out of it's existence, simply by allowing me to laugh at it.

I think these are brilliant ideas and I commend all the dedicated and brilliant people who took the time and energy to contribute to such a worthwhile creative endeavor.Three cheers for them I say:HUZZAH!HUZZAH!!HUZZAH!!!

Elliot Cowan, I can only pray you're kidding. Please tell me you are. And, who said "Popeye and Son"? Really? Did it get down to THAT?

By the way, being a 90's born kid, I have some experience in bad spin-offs. Tom and Jerry Kids. Flinstones Kids. Muppet Babies. Baby Looney Tunes. A Pup Named Scooby Doo. I'm not surprised if those idiots at Cartoon Network are gettin' ready to do a "Gangsta Looney Tizzunes" spin-off. It'd be worse than Loonatics, and, sadly, that's actually not hard to do these days.

Well, it is possible to revive an old character and update them so they look more "modern," but very few get it right. One that really worked for me was The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat, which incorporated the rubber-house animation and surrealism of early theatrical cartoons with a 90's version of "perverted, gross-out" humor. Interestingly enough, Felix still felt like Felix, even though he might have had a bit of 'tude.

I thought the game play was good yet un-remarkable, you'll find the same style in any modern RPG. The characters were hollow and the story was so tedious and boring that it will put to sleep. Basically, they had one story that couldn't execute into an entire game so old Disney film plots were chopped up and stuffed in just to increase the length. In general, the game is a lazy effort that anime and game nerds have lapped up like booze.

Mike F. : Are you the only one in Warners markerting that gives a damn about the Looney Tunes ? :(

There is a way to get rid of the un-creative executive positions - never work for them. it sounds crazy yes, but the only way is a massive load of hard-work, save up your own money and make your own show. team up with other like-minded friends and make a collection of shows. Set-up a community based website (or if you save up enough money, a community cable channel) and make sure there are no strings attached anywhere. if you really are talented with interesting ideas, this will work.

To knock them off their thrones, we need a creative revolution, everybody with talent who care about kids more than buying jacuzzis, put in the effort and by-pass the middle men (you have to admit how ever they got in the middle in the first place is rather amazing).

Here's a challenge, instead of bitching about crap that's out there, how about spreading the word about what's good?"

John does plenty of posts about what's good about cartoons. The problem is that out of necessity they are usually about the distant past. This post is about why.

It's important to know how the enemies of fun operate. It tells you a lot about the world you inhabit. It's a lot like we are living in a world run by human replicant infiltrators with a secret anti-human agenda. You might due well to call it a corporatist agenda.

Killing them is probably not the answer. There are too many of them and more will just take their places, so in that regard I agree that you have to just ignore it, but that doesn't mean it should never be spoken about. We can only beat it with awareness and brains.

Frankly, there's alot to bitch about, because there is an astronomical amount of crap out there.

It's rare that quality cartoons get made these days, and it's been a trend since the 70's. There's also a lot to enjoy too, and I think this blog tries to emphasize that as well. This blog is mostly about teaching about cartoons and animation through criticism of the form.

I think some people get their loins chafed when they hear criticism of anything. They think criticism is always meant to be purely negative, done by those who are purely conservative as an excuse to spit bile and be nasty, when that's usually not the case.

Yeah, pure complaining can get annoying at some point.. but some things just need to be pointed out. I think this blog does a decent enough job of providing some constructive criticism. It's heavily biased toward John's personal views.

I don't agree with everything John or the posters here think (there's some stuff I flat out disagree with), but I appreciate the discussion and point of view, because it inspires me to think more critically of my own work and improve it.

No one said that all change is bad. The point is fighting the false doctrine that all change is good.

I don't think most of us are conservative for the sake of being conservative. (Though that's clearly a loaded word.) And it's an easy slur to throw at someone in order to paint them curmudgeonly.

The point is having enough clarity to discern what's good and what is worthless, regardless of what era things come from. And not buying into the bonkers idea that anything that has apparent 'nowness' about it is by definition making 'progress'. Progress isn't a steady march forward. In order to make progress you HAVE to have discernment. Or to use a word that political corrected has made negative, you have to have discrimination. Or there's really no basis for saying or making anything.

And also, to Jay and Fusy, I don't know if either of you read this blog much, but John points out what's good about things that are good quite a lot. Probably most of the time. And pretty exhaustively.

Don't normally like to get into these sorts of arguments but what the heck.

Dayum...why I ask do these suits need to update stuff! SSC wasn't an animated character to begin with...now shes a BRATZ doll...instead of a cell phone give her eyepatch and a parrot for crisesake and make her a pirate while yer at it.

Hey, John, I know you've already posted a new article, and the responses here are getting rather lengthy, and I dn't really know you as a person, (So have no right to request much) but I'd like to know something.

What modern cartoons do you like? It can't ALL be crap, because there will always be those who know what they're doing.

So, I'd like to know what modern cartoons you think DO work, and why you think they work. If anything, those shows could give us a better perspective of where to go in modern times.

I mean, yeah, you have to understand the past to make progress... But at the same time, we don't want to go backward in time. We want to bring what was good in the old cartoons, and augment it with new good things! We want to bring our own unique take on things into our work, and make it entertaining! Those old animators weren't as great as they are for being just like everyone else who came before them, after all!

I mean, look at your style. You have a different way of assembling your characters from the "masters" of old quite often. And your comedy style is different from just about everything out there. You've taken what was great about the old stuff, and put your own uniqueness into it. Seeing how other people have done it could be equally useful... And possibly more relevant to the REAL modern audiences.

"It's like if you met a person in real life, would you want one who constantly complained about the same old thing everyday or actually tried to enjoy life and have fun?"

WHAT??!! Thats a pretty wild overeaction!

I dont think you're grasping the context of these remarks!I dont think anyone here sits around bitching about this 24 hours a day.The comments are in direct reply to the topic of this post!Besides the old saying "ignorance is bliss" should be noted. Pretending a problem doesnt exist and prancing around through life like everythings sunshine and lollipops wont change the problem...stupidity NEEDS to be adressed and those responsible taken to task!and YES maybe complaining about it on Mr.K's blog WILL make a difference. Its out there on the internet for any media sloth to see and take note of! and yes,I am sure they secretly read this blog (even though some of us use big scary sounding words)maybe seeing all this disent over thier crass marketing methods will cause them to stop and THINK (gasp!)The subject of this post has obviously struck a chord with its audience!

Kingdom Hearts seems tailor-made for a particular kind of fangirl who exist in legion strength on DeviantArt.

They're maybe 15 or 16 years old and can't wait to get into animation school so they can go work at Disney on Cinderella IV: Bibbidi Bobbidi Boobsag. They absolutely lurve the blandness of Disney design and have notebooks full of Lion King fan art in which their mary sue fursona hangs out with Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa.

Not surprisingly they also lurve Final Fantasy, and the thought of emo prettyboys with too many zippers getting it on with each other gets them all twitterpated.

Combine the two, and you have an alchemical reaction of SAD and FAIL. But Square knows their fanbase and more importantly, how to milk them for money.

"and YES maybe complaining about it on Mr.K's blog WILL make a difference.Its out there on the internet for any media sloth to see and take note of! and yes,I am sure they secretly read this blog (even though some of us use big scary sounding words)maybe seeing all this disent over thier crass marketing methods will cause them to stop and THINK (gasp!)"

I just YoutTube'd "Loonatics". I saw a segment from an episode. AND THERE WERE NO GODDAMN JOKES!! What the hell kind of cartoon doesn't have comedy?! What kind of world are we living in?! And do kids actually watch that shit?!

Those executive types are too scared of creative people. Its too bad though, there's tons of awesome ideas out there.Its also really disheartening to see all these once awesome characters being rehashed into large piles of puke.

I loved the reference to the Ninja Turtles "with more muscles and less attitude."

Because that's what kids want to see - Pulsating masses of muscle and veins with no personality.

At least most of the cartoons being messed with here were crap to begin with, and the ones that weren't (like Looney Tunes and Mickey) are far too strong now to be outlasted by their cheap knock-offs.

It still sucks that creative people aren't being hired to create new characters, but it's not like these shows are going to have any lasting effect on the world. Even little kids will forget about them as soon as they've watched them.

The sad, sad thing about it all is that we're FIGHTING OVER CARTOONS. If executives weren't complete retarded puppets, we'd have some creative cartoons. And we wouldn't be having these arguments. If execs and CEOs weren't idiots, we'd have better cartoons that were worth watching and giving a damn about.

Something tells me that the moment John K. was kicked out of Nickelodeon, was the moment that it all started going way down hill.

I think what impressed me most was the description of the process of selecting the 'new' Strawberry Shortcake. File in a bunch of ADULTS with post it notes to decide what the future face of a brand for children is?

While I agree its too bad that theres a lack of "new" cartoons lately, is it right to say these ideas aren't creative? Isn't it creative to take something pre conceived and add a twist to it? Take any old Donald Duck comic from the 40s to 50s, where they would often have parodies of classic works of literature with the whole Duck cast taking the roles. Was that un-creative because they based the entire story on an already existing work? Or was it not creative to use lovable characters in a situation that still suited their personalities?

I understand I'm a minority in this post, but I believe all of these examples are good ideas. While the writing and animation in Loonatics Unleashed isn't particularly noteworthy, the very idea was fresh and an interesting take on old characters, with my favorite one being Wile E. Coyote being the gadget savvy member of the team. This works because from the classic cartoons he always had some gadget or another when trying to capture the road runner, thus complementing his personality greatly.

My one problem with all of these new and altered characters would be if we were to forget the old ones. If Classic gray, white gloved wise cracking Bugs Bunny was to become a foreign idea, then thats disappointing. But thanks to the internet and conservation of all of these movies I don't think we will. These characters are part of the world history, and if nothing else, they will remain and be remembered better than any real human ever would.

I know you don't like the Simpsons, John K., but I can't help but picture the Simpsons doing a scenario like this:

Bart: Hey Lis, check out this new WB cartoon... Loonatics Unleashed?!Lisa: Updating the characters with superhero stuff like that is often a shameless attempt to boost low ratings.Marge: *flies in with a black action suit and rocket pack* Hey, kids! Check out my new laser and jet pack!

Hey Michelle, good hearing, uh, seeing your comments, right on about retirng after Mel Blanc died but as we both and others agree, maybe 30 years before, like in the 50s [Daffy and Speedy? Cool Cat? Though I like that---gulp--and it was Larry Storch, who'd been already doing the "Gilligan"-slapstickly "F Troop" for WB [which, ironically due to the Ted Turner, bought Gilligan as well from United Artists and Phil Silvers!~] And you correctly mentioned the classics voiced by Mel Blanbc from 60-70 years ago, as by 45 or 50 years WB cartoons starting shark jumping. Big Time. [I'm with Stephen Worth and others who aren't big fans of, to say it mildly, of "What's Opera Doc", and even Mel Blanc couldn't save that, and I'd be the keeper of the Brooklyn Bridge if ANYONE can tell me if even Mel Blanc could save the piece of shit Bugs and Daffy crap fest from 64, "Iceman Ducketh". Bleath. I think Warners should have retired their shborts in 1955 myself..:) [I did like Friz's 1960 Bugs/Sam "From hare to Heir", Spoiled Little Lord Fauntleroy Sam was so much more better in the ticked off role for this "...but...if you blow your top you blow some dough" role opposite Bugs..]

Hey, , how about a comment on everyone's "Claymation" favorite, Gumby and Pokey, the 80's "updating" of THAT [which I hated] and the Capitol/Seely, Sam Fox, Phil Green, Jack Shaindlin, KPM, JWMedia Music,etc. cues being [legalies, y'know] redubbed [I hated that too.]

And I HATED Space Jam! [insert evil grin]

PS Strawbeery Shortcake sucked in the first place but they already a few years ago redesigned her..and NOW they're redesigning her AGAIN??

And Mr.Jim Rockford [loved your show!] I have to say that Tiny Toons irreverence killed it since it went in a direction too far even from the 1940s one..even moreso than Quentin Taratino's excellent movie set in the early Bugs era, WWII, using the word, uh, plastered - replace PL with B and put a S on the end. At least that current [as of August 21, 2009] flick box office champ is FUNNY [and DRAMATIC,too.] Tiny Toons used simplky hip hop tudes in the characters and Plucky/Daffy doesn't even get to be wise quacking as in the 40s.

John K. said under the ugly Loonatics screen grab:"If you are not creative, it doesn't mean you can't create. The way to do it is to take things that were once popular and update them by adding whatever new technical gadgets people use, add Rock 'N' Roll or Rap, add any kind of passing trend to it and not only get the concept wrong but get the trends themselves wrong and piss everyone off equally."

Well, it's Obamas that set the "nutrition factor" for Strawberry Shortcake. Andy Williams can use that as yet another reason to hate the current so-called Prez and his wife.

Strange thing is that first Strawberry S. was already cloying before this, and this just wrecked her even more, but what is even more odd is that in her origianl heydey she's like "Flashdance!" It's Madonna! Minnie Mouse got like that!

Incidentally, her 2001 revival seemed to have her like her "sweet" self without the 2008 makeover [when the first post here turned up].

I understand that some shows are stupid, like Loonics. But I liked Space Jam, Looney Tunes Back in Action. I even liked Duck Dodgers show because they had more on Marvin the Martian. He is my favorite looney tune character. They gave him more of a back story rather than have him show up in several cartoon shorts with Bugs Bunny. They didn't rehash their appearance.I was born in the 80's and I missed the classic shows like My Little Ponies, Pound Puppies, etc. They ruined them completley. Who ever got the rights of those should be shot. It was stupid to change the characters completely. Hell they could of had the little ponies having g strings attached to them. It actually makes them horrible. I grew up with those shows, and the horrible of all Pound Puppies look nothing like the old ones at all.Shows like Sponge Bob should be on the chopping block. I am trying to figure out what is so popular. Is it because people hate stupidy?

Now with Kingdom HeartsWell apparently you don't understand the concept that the game is a cross over and that Sora and FF are characters owned by Square ENIX. Disney characters were added into the mix as they companies thought it would be a great twist to a crossover. It is still on going and popular with fans, not because of Sora, but because of the variety of various characters they put in the game. Some game companies have tried that and failed, but Square Enix has created an hit and several sequels and even prequels. Firstly I don't think Kingdom Hearts wouldn't be able to stand up on its own without the use of both Square Enix, FF, or even Disney in it. It works for the story with the whole friendship concept with Sora Donald and Goofy. I couldn't picture Kingdom Hearts without these characters.

I am not a Sora fan and orignally Square Enix were going to add only Sora and Riku, but then Disney told them to stick Kairi in so people don't get the impression that Sora could be gay. I do like the disney characters because I grew up with Disney and giving them more of a role rather than short cartoon shorts or even spin offs gives them more developement for their characters. Mickey in my opinion and so does Donald and Goofy look better with Iris in their eyes rather no pupils. I love charcters from the KH 2 game organization XIII which are black cloaked grim reaper individuals that have no hearts meaning no trace of emotion in them. They act like they do to fool their enemies. They have unique powers such as erasing memories or some variety of with elements of magic. I like their personalities as well and they are interesting.I know lots of people in their 30 through 50s that like it.

Yes I like anime, but only certain type of characters on series. It depends if the characters are interesting to me or not. I usually like villains when I do like shows. I don't like girl anime, robot anime, or school anime. Anime writers are doing exactly what american or other country writers do to get their stuff exposed. Sometimes things fare out while others don't. People can't help popularity. I was introduced by some old school cartoons and newer ones. I don't like all.

People get attached to characters, but don't we all? Wouldn't someone like to see their favorite characters expand rather than die and never be heard of from again. I certainly wouldn't. Unless they changed their appearance completely. Sure all cartoon/video game companies are all money grumbling whores, but what companies isn't? Nintendo is big into this as well. They kept Mario the same, but he does all these other things. His character has expanded as well.

JonnyPlank:JonnyPlank:Kingdom Hearts was a stupid bonking game, and I hated it. It was easy, it was boring, the characters were NOT developed properly, the main characters had nothing to do with FF or Disney, and the cartoony stuff always looked out of place in the FF environments. (Or vice versa) The whole game seemed thematically out of balance. I did not enjoy it.

That game only has the fandom it does, because of childish fangirls/boys who have a tendency to "fall in love" with a character like Sora or Riku. They're drawn in by the sheer fact that it's anime, and they're obsessed with the cliche garbage produced by/for american broadcast. (I call it americanime) They have no taste. They just want something brightly colored, emo, cliche and spiky-haired. And most anime fans, who seek out the really old stuff by the "masters", hate these fans. They just like it, because it's the stylish thing for american nerds to like.

Someone had the nerve to post this comment on a KH forum, probably knowing that it was going to get a response like this. Firstly, I don't even think you played the game because there are no Final Fantasy environments in the game at all. The worlds are original, meaning they were created for the game (i.e. worlds like Traverse Town, Hollow Bastion). There are worlds with Disney characters like Olympus Coliseum (Hercules) and Atlantica (The Little Mermaid) that have a story that's connected to the game's plot. Why this game's picture is in the article, I don't know because the Disney characters in the game stick to the original vision that the characters came from. The only thing different about them is maybe Donald, Goofy, and Mickey's attire but like I said before, the characters are changed in no way at all and it astounds me that it was mentioned in this article.

Secondly, what you said about the series fans was not called for. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I was attracted to the series because of the Disney aspect. When I got into it (maybe at 6 or 7) I didn't even know what anime was. Most people got into it because of the original story, but that's really not the case for some.

Lastly, what you said about the characters not being developed was probably because it was the first game in the series. In KH: CoM the characters get developed pretty damned good.

No offence or anything, you must be retarded or something because all your points about the series are wrong and you shouldn't criticize a series or its fans without giving some thought about it.

Well, the thing is for Ms.Shortcake and the CZare bores, I ean Bears, the way that they are going to look after this obvious Michelle Obama (couldn't SHE WAIT as six months later she'd be the first lady) treament nutritionally, they are even MORE goody goody, more prudish looking, so's to make the ORIGINAL Strawberry Shortcake & Care bears look like Duke Ellington (or, more animatedly, Fred Flintstone and Bugs Bunny by comparision! An amazing though dubious fat.)August 21,2012.Steve C. (Note, the date there is to keep track of the timeline on these posyts..)